Kerala Court December 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kayamkulam N.T.P.C. Employees Union Vs. N.T.P.C. Limited and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-2011
RamachandranNair, J. Appellant in the Writ Appeal and the petitioner in the Writ Petition are employees unions which have approached this Court for a direction to the employer not to deduct tax on the value of perquisites in respect of accommodation provided at concessional rate of rent to the employees. The learned Single Judge, who decided the Writ Petition against which the Writ Appeal is filed, felt that the matter should be considered by the Income Tax Authorities and not by this Court in writ proceedings. 2. On considering the grounds raised in the Writ Appeal and in the WP(C), we do not find any justification to take a different view because tax has to be deducted at source on the salary payments including perquisites as required under Section 192 of the Income Tax Act. If the deduction proposed is excess, it is always open to the employees to approach the Assessing Officer to issue a certificate under Section 197 for payment without deduction or deduction after excluding any am...
Avinash V. Saraf and Others Vs. Ernakulam Karayogam Society
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-22-2011
V. Chitambaresh, J. ThottekkattDiwan Memorial Hall popularly known as “TDM Hall” at Darbar Hall Ground Road, Ernakulam has been the venue of many marriages and civic functions for over half a century. There is a row of shop rooms having road frontage in the same building complex abutting the TDM Hall which are the subject matter of these Rent Control Revisions. The building belongs to “Ernakulam Karayogam” a society (hereinafter referred to as ‘the landlord’) which had obviously been engaging in various welfare activities for long. Eviction of the tenants from the shop rooms in question was sought under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The need alleged was that the landlord wanted the petition scheduled premises to house a Computer Centre and a Day Care Centre for children as part of its welfare activities. There already exists a marriage hall, matrimonial ce...
Ranjith Vs. Kannur University
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-22-2011
The petitioners were candidates for appointment to the post of Assistants, notified by the University. They have participated in the selection also. The appointments of contesting respondents are challenged in this Writ Petition, on the plea that the Selection Committee constituted is not the properly constituted one in terms of the statute. Instead of the vice Chancellor, the, Pro Vice Chancellor was the Chairman of the committee. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Shri George Poonthottam, learned Standing Counsel for the University Shri M. Saseendran, and learned counsel Shri P.C. Sasidharan, Shri P.U. Shailajan, Shri K.T. Shyamkumar, Shri Benoy K, Kadavan, Shri R. Sudhish and Shri P. Ramachandran, appearing for the contesting party respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under S.25 (viii) of the Kannur University Act, the power to appoint teachers and other employees of the University is vested in the Syndicate. Statute 8 of Part II of Chapter IV o...
Athira Ashok Vs. Kannur University and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-22-2011
1. All these writ petitions concern a common issue regarding the filling up of the post of Assistants in Kannur University. WP (C) Nos. 21142/2010 and 36023/2010 are filed by persons who are claiming that they are fully qualified for appointment if a fresh notification is issued by the University. In WP (C) Nos. 6068/2011 and 11523/2011, the petitioners are candidates who have been included in the rank list published by the University for appointment to the said post. The whole dispute is whether the University can make appointment, in excess of the number of vacancies specified in the notification. 2. Ext. P1 produced in WP (C) No. 21142/2010 is the copy of the notification issued by the University dated 04/09/2008. Against the post of Assistant, the number of vacancies shown is 45. After conducting a written test as well as interview, a rank list was published on 02/08/2010. Forty - five vacancies have been filled up by making appointments also. The contention taken by the petitioner...
Anil Kumar V.R. Vs. Sathi Kumari and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-22-2011
1. Petitioner complained to the jurisdictional police that his wife is missing. Police does not dispute that Ext.P2 was issued to him acknowledging receipt of that complaint. Their version is that on the date of receipt of that complaint, the petitioner’s wife came to the police station with another woman, Sathikumari; that on counseling by the police, it appeared that the petitioner’s wife is not happy with him and wants to live apart. According to the police, they, therefore, let her go with the aforesaid Sathikumari. Whatever be the impression gathered by the police officers on their interaction with the petitioner, his wife and Sathikumari; we are unable to accept that the course of action adopted by the police was in accordance with law. On the face of the petitioner’s complaint that a person is missing, what would have happened to the police in connection with that acknowledged reporting of a person missing, if the petitioner’s wife cannot be traced therea...
Abdul Vahab Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-22-2011
The petitioner in the above Writ Petition challenges the assessment order, Ext.P1, purportedly passed u/S.175 read with S.174(3) of the Income Tax Act (for short “the Act”) as confirmed in revision by Ext.P4 order. 2. The facts of the case relevant for the consideration of the Writ Petition are that the petitioner was accosted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Koduvally while on night patrol duty and unaccounted cash amounting to `1,74,000/- was seized from him. The seized amount was deposited with the Judicial First class Magistrate-1, Thamarasserry which, later, was released to the petitioner-assessee after setting apart 33% towards income tax dues. Thereafter notice u/S.142(1) was issued to the petitioner and since no return was filed, a letter was issued communicating the proposal to complete the assessment ex parte. In response to the said communication, the petitioner-assessee filed a reply, pursuant to which a statement was recorded from him, wherein the petitioner fur...
Nfg Flat Owners Welfare Association and Another Vs. M/S Royal Projects ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-22-2011
SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Complaint filed under section 15 and 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. The case of the complainants is as follows:- 1st complainant is the North Fort Garden (NFG) Flat Owners Welfare Association represented by its President and 2nd complainant is the present President of the 1st complainant association. 2nd complainant is also owner of one flat in North Fort Garden (NFG). The opposite parties are the promoters and builders of NFG, a multi storied building consisting of 32 flats. 1st respondent is the partnership firm by name M/s Royal Projects represented by its Managing Partner and opposite parties 2 to 5 are the partners of the 1st opposite party firm. The complaint is filed for and on behalf of NFG and for the benefit of the flat owners in NFG flats. The said 32 apartments in the building are situated on the land comprised in survey No.983/03 of Nadama village having an extent of 24.476 cents. The owners of the aforesaid 32 apa...
M/S Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. P.P. Philip and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-22-2011
SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER This appeal is preferred by the 2nd opposite party in CC No. 154/08 before the CDRF, Ernakulam who is aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated 21.10.10 in the above said complaint. As per the order the 1st opposite party is directed release the vehicle to the complainant in a road worthy condition and is at liberty to claim the expenses incurred by them from the 2nd opposite party/appellant. 2. The case of the complainant before the Forum was that his car bearing Registration No. KL 17/E 58 met with an accident on 28.8.07 and same was entrusted to the 1st opposite party for repairs and that the 1st opposite party claimed a sum of Rs. 2,59,496/- towards the repairs. It is the case of the complainant that the car was purchased on 28.8.06 and since the repair cost was in excess of the cost of the car, the 2nd opposite party was liable to settle the claim on total loss basis. 3. The 1st opposite party filed version contending that as per t...
Anil Vs. State, Represented by the Excise Inspector, Chengannur by the ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-2011
1. The Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc -II), Alappuzha in Sessions Case No.124/2001, by judgment dated 30.1.2004 convicted the appellant for offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. One lakh with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months. In the preface of the impugned judgment, section of offence is misquoted as 55(i). Assailing the above conviction and sentence, this appeal is preferred. 2. The prosecution case is that, on 7.12.1998 at 8.30 p.m., while PW4, a Preventive Officer attached to the Chengannur Excise Range, moving on patrol duty along with PW5, a Guard and others, found the appellant coming across with a plastic bottle which was marked as MO1. Suspecting that the bottle contained some contraband liquid the appellant was intercepted and the contents in MO1 was tested by smell and taste. It was convinced that MO1 having a capacity of 1= litres contained full of illicit arrack. The ap...
K. Reghunathan Vs. M/S Kotak Mahindra Primus Ltd. and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-21-2011
The appellant is the complainant in OP.332/05 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint has been allowed in part holding that the complainant is not liable to pay an amount to the 1st opposite party/Financier and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party/RTO. The complainant is not satisfied with the above order as no compensation has been awarded. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had availed a loan of Rs.3.00.000/- from the 1st opposite party/Financier for the purchase of a Tata sumo car. As per the agreement the amount to be repaid is Rs.3,71,985/- at the rate of Rs.10333/- in 35 installments. It is the case that after making the entire payment the 1st opposite party issued in NIL statement intimating the termination of the loan. The first opposite party demanded Rs.7,090/- towards penal interest as well as miscellaneous charges due to dishonour of cheques. The complainant has sent a letter dated 21.6.03 requesting to exonerate...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »